Arxiv:1806.06873V2 [Math.RT] 2 May 2019 Erhcuclo Canada
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
STRING DIAGRAMS AND CATEGORIFICATION ALISTAIR SAVAGE Dedicated to Vyjayanthi Chari on the occasion of her 60th birthday Abstract. These are lectures notes for a mini-course given at the conference Interactions of Quantum Affine Algebras with Cluster Algebras, Current Algebras, and Categorification in June 2018. The goal is to introduce the reader to string diagram techniques for monoidal categories, with an emphasis on their role in categorification. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Strict monoidal categories and string diagrams 2 3. Monoidally generated algebras 5 4. Pivotal categories 10 5. Categorification 14 6. Heisenberg categories 19 References 22 1. Introduction Categorification is rapidly becoming a fundamental concept in many areas of mathematics, including representation theory, topology, algebraic combinatorics, and mathematical physics. One of the principal ingredients in categorification is the notion of a monoidal category. The goal of these notes is to introduce the reader to these categories as they often appear in categorifica- tion. Our intention is to motivate the definitions as much as possible, to help the reader build an intuitive understanding of the underlying concepts. arXiv:1806.06873v2 [math.RT] 2 May 2019 We begin in Section 2 with the definition of a strict k-linear monoidal category. Our treatment will center around the string diagram calculus for such categories. The importance of this for- malism comes from both the geometric intuition it provides and the fact that string diagrams are the framework upon which the applications of categorification to other areas such as knot theory and topology are built. In Section 3 give a number of examples of strict k-linear monoidal categories. Most mathe- maticians encounter monoidal categories as additional structure on some concept they already study: sets, vector spaces, group representations, etc. all naturally form monoidal categories. However, we will define abstract monoidal categories via generators and relations. Even though 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 18D10. Key words and phrases. Monoidal category, string diagram, pivotal category, categorification. This work was supported by Discovery Grant RGPIN-2017-03854 from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Re- search Council of Canada. 2 ALISTAIR SAVAGE this idea has been around for some time, it is still somewhat foreign to many mathematicians working outside of category theory. We will see how, using this approach, one can obtain ex- tremely efficient descriptions of familiar objects such as symmetric groups, degenerate affine Hecke algebras, braid groups, and wreath product algebras. The formalism of string diagrams is at its best when one has a pivotal category, and we turn to this concept in Section 4. We start by discussing dual objects in monoidal categories. Pivotal categories are categories in which all objects have duals, the duality data is compatible with the tensor product, and the right and left mates of morphisms are equal. In pivotal categories, isotopic string diagrams correspond to the same morphism, allowing for intuitive topological arguments, as well as deep connections to topology and knot theory. In Section 5, we discuss the idea of categorification, beginning with what is perhaps the standard approach, involving the Grothendieck group/ring of an additive category. We then discuss the trace of a category, and how this gives rise to a second type of categorification. We also define the Chern character map, which relates the Grothendieck group to the trace, and the notion of idempotent completion, motivated by the concept of a projective module. We conclude, in Section 6, with the example of Heisenberg categories. We define these cat- egories using the ideas we have developed, and explain their relationship to the Heisenberg algebra. Our discussion here is necessarily brief, aiming only to give the reader a taste of a current area of research. We point the interested reader to references for further reading. 2. Strict monoidal categories and string diagrams 2.1. Definitions. Throughout this document, all categories are assumed to be locally small. In other words, we have a set of morphisms between any two objects. A strict monoidal category is a category C equipped with • a bifunctor (the tensor product) ⊗: C × C → C and • a unit object 1 such that, for all objects X, Y, and Z of C, we have • (X ⊗ Y) ⊗ Z = X ⊗ (Y ⊗ Z) and • 1 ⊗ X = X = X ⊗ 1, and, for all morphisms f, g, and h of C, we have • (f ⊗ g) ⊗ h = f ⊗ (g ⊗ h) and • 11 ⊗ f = f = f ⊗ 11. Here, and throughout the document, 1X denotes the identity endomorphism of an object X. Remark 2.1. Note that, in a (not necessarily strict) monoidal category, the equalities above are replaced by isomorphism, and one imposes certain coherence conditions. For example, suppose k is a field, and let Vectk be the category of finite-dimensional k-vector spaces. In this category one has isomorphisms (U ⊗ V) ⊗ W U ⊗ (V ⊗ W), but these isomorphisms are not equalities in general. Similarly, the unit object in this category is the one-dimensional vector space k, and we have k ⊗ V V V ⊗ k for any vector space V. We will be building monoidal categories “from scratch” via generators and relations. Thus, we are free to require them to be strict. In general, Mac Lane’s coherence theorem for monoidal categories asserts that every monoidal category is monoidally equivalent to a strict one. (For a proof of this fact, see [Mac98, §VII.2] or [Kas95, §XI.5].) So, in practice, we don’t lose much by assuming monoidal categories are strict. (See also [Sch01].) STRING DIAGRAMS AND CATEGORIFICATION 3 Fix a commutative ground ring k. A k-linear category is a category C such that • for any two objects X and Y of C, the hom-set HomC(X, Y) is a k-module, • composition of morphisms is bilinear: f ◦ (αg + βh) = α(f ◦ g) + β(f ◦ h), (αf + βg) ◦ h = α(f ◦ h) + β(g ◦ h), for all α, β ∈ k and morphisms f, g, and h such that the above operations are defined. The category of k-modules is an example of a k-linear category. For any two k-modules M and N, the space Homk(M, N) is again a k-module under the usual pointwise operations. Composition is bilinear with respect to this k-module structure. A strict k-linear monoidal category is a category that is both strict monoidal and k-linear, and such that the tensor product of morphisms is k-bilinear. Before discussing some examples, we mention the important interchange law. Suppose f g X1 −→ X2 and Y1 −→ Y2 are morphisms in a strict k-linear monoidal category C. Then (1X2 ⊗ g) ◦ (f ⊗ 1Y1 ) = ⊗((1X2 , g)) ◦ ⊗((f, 1Y1 )) = ⊗((1X2 , g) ◦ (f, 1Y1 )) = ⊗((f, g)) = f ⊗ g, where the second equality uses that the tensor product is a bifunctor. Similarly, (f ⊗ 1Y2 ) ◦ (1X1 ◦ g) = f ⊗ g. Thus, the following diagram commutes: 1⊗g / X1 ⊗ Y1 X1 ⊗ Y2 ▲▲ ▲▲▲f⊗g f⊗1 ▲▲▲ f⊗1 ▲▲% / X2 ⊗ Y1 X2 ⊗ Y2 1⊗g 2.2. Examples. Let’s consider a very simple strict monoidal category. Every monoidal category must have a unit object 1 by definition. But it is possible that this is the only object. The identity axiom for a strict monoidal category forces 1 ⊗ 1 = 1. There is only one hom-set in this category, namely End(1) := Hom(1, 1). The associativity axiom for morphisms in a category implies that End(1) is a monoid under composition, with identity 11, the identity endomorphism of 1. The axioms of a strict monoidal category imply that End(1) is also a monoid under the tensor product. However, the interchange law forces these monoids to coincide, and to be commutative! Indeed, for all f, g ∈ End(1), we have (2.1) f ◦ g =(f ⊗ 11) ◦ (11 ⊗ g) = f ⊗ g =(11 ⊗ g) ◦ (f ⊗ 11) = g ◦ f. Conversely, given any commutative monoid A, we have a strict monoidal category with one object 1, and End(1) = A. The composition and tensor product are both given by the multiplication in A. Now consider a strict k-linear monoidal category with one object 1. Then End(1) is an as- sociative k-algebra, and an argument exactly analogous to the one above shows that it is, in fact, commutative. Conversely, every commutative associative k-algebra gives rise to a one-object strict k-linear monoidal category. 4 ALISTAIR SAVAGE Note that the above discussion actually shows that End(1) is a commutative monoid in any strict monoidal category and is a commutative k-algebra in any strict k-linear monoidal category. The monoid/algebra End(1) is called the center of the category. Example 2.2 (Center of Vectk). Suppose k is a field and consider the category Vectk of finite- dimensional k-vector spaces. This is not a strict monoidal category, but, as noted in Remark 2.1 (see, in particular, [Sch01, Th. 4.3]), we can safely avoid this technicality. The unit object of Vectk is the one-dimensional vector space k, and so the center of this category is Endk(k), which is canonically isomorphic, as a ring, to k via the isomorphism (2.2) Endk(k) −→ k, f 7→ f(1). 2.3. String diagrams. Strict monoidal categories are especially well suited to being depicted using the language of string diagrams. These diagrams, which are sometimes also called Penrose diagrams, have their origins in work of Roger Penrose in physics [Pen71]. Working with strings diagrams helps build intuition. It also often makes certain arguments obvious, whereas the corresponding algebraic proof can be a bit opaque. We give here a brief overview of string diagrams, referring the reader to [TV17, Ch. 2] for a detailed treatment. Throughout this section, C will denote a strict k-linear monoidal category.